Following
the publication of a news-item in various newspapers on 24.12.2002 regarding
the police firing on a Tata Sumo vehicle on 23.12.2002 near the Manjhaul
Outpost (O.P.), which claimed life of two youths, the Begusarai unit of
the PUCL held a meeting, where it was decided to conduct a suo motu enquiry
of theincident. Accordingly, an inquiry team was formed, in which Arun
Kumar (vice-president, PUCL, Bihar), Ramashray Prasad Singh (president,
Begusarai district unit of PUCL) and Ram Naresh Sharma (PUCLs Bihar
State Council member) were nominated to conduct the inquiry.

The
team visited Manjhaul and conducted an on-the-spot inquiry on December
25 and 27 and talked to an injured Rajiv Ranjan and his co-traveller Viranjan
Kumar onDecember 25 and recorded their versions. They were aboard the
ill-fated Tata Sumo (BR-06E-2786) when the incident took place.

Statements
of Eyewitnesses and the victimsStatement
of Rajiv Ranjan, S/o Late Kamta Prasad Singh, resident of Manjhaul under
the Cheria Bariyarpur police station of Begusarai district:
An injured Rajiv told the PUCL team that his FIR in connection with the
incident was lodged by the police only after intervention of the Begusarai
superintendent of police (SP). The FIR in question constitutes the case
No 130/02 of the Cheria Bariyarpur police station. Rajiv Ranjan swore
by the FIR, in toto.

Statement
of Viranjan Kumar, S/o Mr Rajendra Singh, of Saankhmohan under the Cheria
Bariyarpur police station jurisdiction of Begusarai district:
Claiming himself to be an eyewitness, Viranjan Kumar fully supported the
version of Rajiv Ranjan and added that as soon as the Tata Sumo became
slow at thespeed-breaker near Manjhaul O.P., Dy.S.P. Maheshwar Mahto and
other police constables rained bullets on it its back from the O.P. side.
I managed to save myself by ducking in the vehicle. But Rajni Ranjan
and Rajesh Kumar died in this firing, while the driver, Firoze Alam, and
Rajiv Ranjan got injured, Viranjan Kumar said. This was discovered
by Viranjan when the vehicle stopped.

Statements
of Anil Kumar Ishwar, S/o Mr Rameshwar Singh alias Buddhu Ishwar, resident
of village Seori under the area of police station Cheria Bariyarpur of
Begusarai district and Aditya Ishwar, S/o Kamleshwari Ishwar, of Seori
village under Cheria Bariyarpur police station of Begusarai district:
It was about 8 pm on Monday (23.12.2002). I was at my battery shop -­
Allah Ishwar Battery House  in front of Khadi Bhandar. I heard sound
of gunshots, coming from about 100 metres north of my shop, where the
Manjhaul O.P. is located. I immediately got out of the shop, along with
my co-villager and business partner Aditya Ishwar. We saw that a Tata
Sumo was coming from the northern side and Manjhaul DSP and other policemen
were running behind and firing at it. Although it was dark, we could identify
DSP Maheshwar Mahto himself firing at the vehicle. As they neared our
shop still firing at Tata Sumo, we went back into our shop out of fear
and bolted the doors.

Later, about after 30-45 minutes, we came to know that the target of the
firing were the sons of late Kamta Babu of Manjhaul, who were coming from
Muzaffarpur in the vehicle, and that while Rajesh Kumar and Rajni Ranjan
died in the incident, the vehicle driver and Rajiv Ranjan had received
injuries.

Statement
of Kanhaiya Kumar Singh, S/o Kedar Prasad Singh, resident of village Manjhaul
under Cheria Bariyarpur police station of Begusarai district:
I run a milk co-operative. The collection centre of the co-operative is
located near Manjhaul Pustakalay Chowk. Having finished my routine work
at the centre
on 23.12.2002, while I was on way to the milk co-operative supervisers
residence (near Chirag Oil) on my bicycle at about 7.45 pm. As soon as
I got down from my bicycle near the residence of Superviser Mr R.K. Chanchal,
I suddenly heard the sound of firings from the Manjhaul O.P. side. I hid
myself inside a garage out of fear. As I peeped out, I saw a Tata Sumo
vehicle rushing northward  towards Manjhaul Chowk. Some four-five
armed persons were trying to chase the vehicle and firing at it continuously.
They kept firing and chasing it up to Manjhaul Khadi Bhandar.

From
there, while the chasers returned towards the Manjhaul O.P., the vehicle
sped past towards a north-located village. In the meantime, another vehicle
was coming from Begusarai side, in the headlights of which I saw Manjhaul
Dy.S.P. Maheshwar Mahto. He was accompanied by four-five policemen. I
also saw the Dy.SP handing over a rifle to one of the constables. They
went towards the Manjhaul O.P., while I left for my residence immediately
out of
fear.

When I reached near the house of late Kamta Babu, I saw there some noisy
scenes, following which I went there. There I found Rajni Ranjan dead
on the front seat and the body of another on the middle one. The driver
and Rajiv Ranjan were injured. With help of villagers, we took the two
injured persons for treatment to Dr B.K. Rais clinic.

Statement
of Arun Kumar, S/o Brajkishore Prasad Singh, and Mrityunjay Kumar, S/o
Ram Narayan Singh, both residents of Manjhaul village under Cheria Bariyarpurpolice
station of Begusarai district:
The incident took place around 8-8.30 pm on Monday (23.12.2002). That
day we were sitting in our office, which is located at Manjhaul Bus Stand,
along with my
staff, including Mrityunjay Kumar and Baban Singh.

Suddenly, we rushed outside on hearing gunshots from Manjhaul O.P. side,
and moved towards the same. I was accompanied by Mrityunjay Kumar. When
we reached Veena Pustak Bhandar, which is about 100 metres from the bus
stand, we saw a Tata Sumo vehicle coming from the south and rushing towards
north. Dy.S.P. Maheshwar Mahto and some policemen were running behind
the
vehicle, firing at it and yelling: Maro saale ko. I told Mrityunjay
that the Dy.S.P. is firing, let us flee. And we took to the left flank
of the road and jumped into the roadside fields and got back to the road
near the old O.P. at Bakhri road. When we returned from there to our office
at the bus stand, we came to know that Dy.SPs firings had killed
two occupants of the vehicle while two co-travellers had got injured.

Baban Singh (an employee of Manjhaul Bus Stand), S/o Ravindra Prasad
Singh, of village Maheshwara under Cheria Bariyarpur police station of
Begusarai
district:
It happened on 23.12.2002 (Monday) around 8-8.30 pm. I was sitting in
the bus stand office, along with contractor Arun Kumar and Mrityunjay
Kumar, a bus
stand employee, besides other two-three employees. As we heard the sound
of gunshots from the southern side of the bus stand (in which direction
the Manjhaul O.P. is situated), contractor Arun Kumar and Mritunjay Kumar
rushed towards south to take stock of the situation. Soon after, I saw
a Tata Sumo vehicle, with completely broken rear windscreen, rushing northwards
where the Manjhaul village is located. After half-an-hour or so, we learnt
that Manjhaul Dy.S.P. Maheshwar Mahto-led police party had opened fire
at the vehicle, due to which two travellers had died while another two
become injured.

THE
VISITING PUCL INQUIRY TEAM COULD NOT REGISTER THE STATEMENTS OF THE INJURED
DRIVER OF THE ILL-FATED VEHICLE, FIROZE ALAM, AS HE WAS UNDERGOING TREATMENT
AT MUZAFFARPUR.

Statement
of Manjhaul O.P. Assistant Sub-inspector Ved Narayan Singh:
On 23.12.2002, around 3 Oclock, Dy.S.P. sahab,accompanied by reserve
police force, had gone to Dilip Singhs house to conduct a raid there.
At about 4 pm,
the Dy.S.P sahab returned and said that he got two rounds of fire opened
in the air by his men, in which no one was injured. He again left for
the bus stand,
along with three armed constables, and returned. In the meantime, Assistant
Sub-inspector (ASI) Shiv Prasad Sinha had also reached the bus stand.
After
instructing ASI Sinha to be on patrol there with his men, Dy.S.P sahab
returned, along with the reserve force to the O.P. He had returned at
6 pm to O.P. and
at then left for his residence.

At about 7.45 pm, Shiv Prasad Sinhaji returned to the O.P. from the patrolling
work. At that time, I was watching wireless messages. At 8 pm, all of
a sudden,
firing started on the gate of the O.P. Three motorcycle-borne people,
firing shots, then left southwards and kept firing at the S.D.O. office
gate also. The O.P. policemen returned the fire. I ran up to the residence
of Dy.S.P. sahab. He too heard the gunshots and his reserve force constables
also returned fire from their barrack. The three motorcyle-borne criminals
then returned from the nearby petrol pump. The Dy.S.P. then came after
putting back his uniform and moved ahead. Since I was in civil dress,
I started putting on the uniform and took my service revolver along. In
the meantime, how and who fired at Tata Sumo, I could not make out. I
got ready and reached the gate, and saw Dy.SP sahab inside the gate in
front of the barrack. ASI Shiv Prasad Sinha, armed constables and Dy.SP
sahabs reserve force jawans were standing beside. About 40-45 minutes
later, Dy.SP sahab came to know that two Tata Sumo travellers had died
and other two occupants of the same vehicle had become injured.

It was he, who informed me about the incident, which I passed on to the
Begusarai district headquarters on wireless.

On 24.12.2002, at around 2 pm, I received the instruction to maintain
shadow under Cheria Bariyarpur police station case No 130/02. Since
then, I have not met Dy.SP sahab. His residence is locked from 25.12.2002.

ASI Ved Narayan Singh showed two bullet marks on the western wall of the
O.P. building, but denied to have found any used bullet particle from
there. Two bullet
marks were also shown on the eastern corner of the northern wall of the
O.P. but he again denied to have found any bullet particle from there.

He, however, admitted that bullets on Tata Sumos right-side gate
might have been fired from the O.P. side, as the vehicle was going from
south to north
direction and the O.P. is located east of the road. He also said that
no bullet marks on any side of the S.D.O. office building were found.

Statement
of Ram Chandra Prasad, S.D.O., Manjhaul, district Begusarai:
The incident took place around 8 pm. On 23.12.2002, I was at my residence.
I first heard a gunshot, followed by many more. I got ready and sent my
guard to Dy.SP sahabs residence. When Dy.SP sahab did not come for
10-15 minutes, I myself went to his residence to wake him up. He came
out after four-five minutes. By the time Dy.SP sahab reached the OP, the
firing had stopped. I returned and tried to talk to DM and SP sahab. While
the DM could not be contacted, I did talk to SP sahab. DSP sahab is traceless
since 25.12.2002 and, therefore, have not been able to contact him till
now.

Inference from the tentative sketch map of the
area around the place of occurrence:
It is evident from the rough sketch of the place of occurrence (PO) that
the Manjhaul OP is located east of the Begusarai-Rosera road, and it falls
on the right side of the road while on way to Manjhaul from Begusarai.
A Tata Sumo vehicle has five gates: two in the front, of which the right
one is on the right side of the driver's seat; two on the two sides of
the back seat; and one opens behind the back seat.

The Tata Sumo, in which the victims were travelling, bears a hole on the
right side of the driving seat, through which the bullet made its way
into the driver's seat. Besides, the totally shattered rear window glass
clearly suggests that the firing took place from the OP side and from
behind the vehicle. The sketch makes it amply clear that if at all the
firing had taken place from the left side of the road -- opposite side
of the Manjhaul OP -- it would have penetrated the left door of the vehicle
instead of the bullets piercing the left and right gates to re-enter from
the
right side.

Self-statement of ASI Ved Narayan Singh of Manjhaul
Op, under PS Cheria Bariyarpur, Dist. Begusarai,
Recorded by myself on 23.12.2002 at 20:30 hrs at Manjhaul op: My
name is Ved Narayan Singh. At present, I am posted at Manjhaul Out-post
(OP) as an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI). Today, on 23.12.02, Monday,
at 20:30 hrs at Manjhaul OP, go on record to say that today, when I was
on the OP premises at 20:00 hrs, armed police force of the OP were in
their barracks and ASI Shivkumar Prasad Sinha was also there. All of a
sudden, several criminals on three motorcycles came from Manjhaul side
to the OP gate and started indiscriminate firing  a bout 20-25 rounds
 at the armed forces.

Following this, in self-defence and for the safety of arms and ammunitions,
the forces returned the fire from their barracks itself. From the OP side,
armed
forces Havildar Raghunandan Yadav fired five rounds, constable (709)
Amarjeet Paswan one round, constable (645) Ajay Kumar Singh five rounds,
constable (671) Rajiv Kumar four rounds and ASI Shivkumar Prasad Sinha
fired four rounds with his service revolver at the motorcycle-borne criminals
from the barrack. The criminals were firing with rifles, carbines and
pistols and abusing the policemen. Later, the criminals left southward
on their motorcycles.

After a while, gunshots were also heard from near the SDO office gate
and further southward. Again, a few minutes later, the sound of criminals
motorcycles was heard, who were still firing and proceeding towards Manjhaul.
In the meantime, a Tata Sumo vehicle was seen heading northward, ahead
of the motorcyclists. This vehicle was also fired at by the criminals.

Firing with sophisticated arms (as mentioned above) at the vehicle and
the OP, the criminals fled towards Manjhaul. Infamous criminals Dilip
Singh, S/o Ramashish Singh, of Manjhaul Purwari Tola, and Mantun Singh
(fathers name not known) of Maheshwara, under Naokothi PS, were
identified while some other criminals, also of Manjhaul, whose names are
not known but we recognise them by face, were also seen. The criminals
kept firing up to Manjhaul. However, none of us received any injury as
we could not come out of the OP premises.

Then we went to the residence of sub-divisional police officer (SDPO)
, where Manjhaul sub-divisional officer (SDO) was also present, along
with armed forces. On being called, the SDPO emerged out after putting
on his uniform. By then, his armed forces had also reached there. Then
constable Ajay Kumar Mishra, attached with the SDPO, informed that he
had fired two rounds and constable Nawal Kishore Yadav six rounds from
his first floor-located residence.

Thereafter, the SDPO, accompanied by the Manjhaul SDO, went around the
SDO office premises to take stock of the situation. The criminals had
fired around 40
rounds with an intent to kill the OP havildar and other officials of the
sub-division. But we managed to escape unhurt.

This
act of the criminals to target the policemen is a cognizable offence U/s
148/149/307/353 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Therefore,
I charge
criminals Dilip Singh, Mantun Singh and those unidentified ones under
the above-mentioned Sections and hereby, start investigation of the case.

Ved Narayan Singh
23.12.2002
ASI, Manjhaul.

Forwarded
to: Officer-in-charge, Cheria Bariyarpur P.S., to institute a case U/s
148/149/307/353 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. ASI Ved Narayan
Singh took up its investigation.

This is to intimate you that yesterday, on 23.12.2002, I, along with Rajni
Ranjan, S/o Late Kamta Prasad Singh, of Manjhaul, Rajesh Kumar, S/o Late
Devendra,
of Fakuli village under Karahni PS of Muzaffarpur district, and Viranjan
Kumar, S/o Rajendra Singh, of Saankhmohan village under Vibhutipur PS,
were coming
in a Tata Sumo vehicle, bearing registration No BR-06E-2786, from Muzaffarpur.
The vehicle driver was Md. Firoze Alam, of Bairiya in Muzaffarpur district.
Around 8-8:15 pm, as soon as our vehicle neared the Manjhaul OP, we saw
in the vehicle headlights Dy.SP Maheshwar Mahto and three-four policemen
standing with rifles on the right flank of the road. No sooner did the
vehicle become slow at the speed-breaker, than one of the constables said:
Sir, there are five people in the vehicle. At it, the Dy.SP
said: Shoot them, and opened fire himself from
his rifle. We were taken aback as 20-22 bullets were rained from the right
and the rear sides of the vehicle. Bullets left Rajesh dead on the middle
seat
and Rajni Ranjan on the front one.

The
driver was also hit in the back. An on-foot co-villager Kanhaiya Prasad,
S/o Kedar Prasad Singh, a local bus stand contractor Arun Kumar, and Mrityunjay
Kumar, S/o R.N.P. Singh, among others, were a witness to the entire sequence
of events. However, the driver somehow brought the vehicle home despite
his being injured. From there, he was taken to Dr B.K. Rai for treatment.
He is struggling for life at a Begusarai-based doctors clinic.

The Manjhaul Dy.SP intentionally opened fire and asked the policemen to
open fire and got killed Rajni Ranjan and my friend Rajesh. He also tried
to get me and our driver killed by opening fire at us, in which we only
sustained injuries.

That is why, I am handing this application over to you and the district
magistrate on your visit here. Necessary legal action is requested.

Point-wise
analysis of the sequence of events by the PUCLinvestigation team:

Vital clues in the self-statement of the informant on the exchange of
fire between the armed forces and the criminals:-

(a) The fact that the criminals fired 20-25 rounds and the policemen 19
rounds of fire is not corroborated either by the eye-witness accounts
or chance/nearby
witnesses or the circumstantial evidence. In fact, this crime report itself
appears concocted, embellished and an after-thought with a view to give
a new twist to the cold-blooded murder by the Manjhaul SDPO.

(b)
The informant has said in his self-statement that the criminals soon after
returned towards the Manjhaul village firing and on the Sumo vehicle.
It is worth
pointing out here that the sound of firing with rifles and carbines can
be heard in a radius of at least 1-1/2 km in the silence of the night.
It is common sense that no one will proceed further after hearing gunfire,
that too when the traveller knows that he is close to some PS/OP. In the
depicted situation, one would rather rush into the PS/OP premises for
safety instead of driving on towards the village. Therefore, there is,
apparently, no reason not to consider the police version doubtful, concocted
and an after-thought.

(c)
The informant in his FIR says that the criminals opened fire to inflict
death and damage on the police force, but the FIR is silent about the
motive of opening fire on the ill-fated Sumo.

(d)
The self-statement has been recorded at 3.30 am in the night. It is a
matter of surprise and shame that that neither the SDO nor SDPO nor ASI
nor the reserve
guards -- numbering about 30 in all, going by the FIR -- deemed it fit
to chase the miscreants, and instead, chose to lodge the case barely 10
minutes after the
incident!

It is indicative of gross negligence of duty on the part of the police,
and prima facie, appears to be a well-planned act meant to conceal their
own criminal lapse. It is amply clear also from the fact that ASI Ved
Narayan Singh, apart from being the informant of case No. 129/02, happens
to be its investigating officer as well. Not just that, he is also the
eye-witness as well as material witness in the same case.

(e)
The informant's statements, as given in the FIR and the one he made before
the PUCL investigating team, lack uniformity. Besides, the statement of
the Manjhaul SDO before the team does not gel with the informants' versions.
This clearly suggests that these facts have been presented only to shield
the guilty official, and therefore, are suspect in nature.

(f)
FIR No 130/02; informant Rajiv Ranjan, an injured eye-witness: The FIR
lodged by an injured eye-witness, Rajiv Ranjan, following the SP's recommendation
presents a brief and authentic account of the sequence of events. Its
authenticity is established by the fact that this petition was approved
and recommended after the primary verification of the facts by the DM
and the SP on the spot. Had the SP not been convinced prima facie, he
would not have at all ordered for FIR against his own official U/s 302
and 307 of the IPC. It has been the investigative teams experience
that the SP has, otherwise, neither looked into nor acted upon the complaints
of police excesses.

(g)
The Begusarai DM and SP, in their report sent to the Home Secretary, Government
of Bihar, and DGP-cum-IGP, Bihar, Patna, have described this case
after prima facie investigation to be apparently one of MURDER. Both officials
have stated in their report that the firing resorted to by the Dy.SP and
the reserve police was unreasonable and uncalled for. The Dy.SPs
conduct has been stated to be suspect and suggestive of carelessness towards
duty. And that is why, they have strongly recommended his transfer from
the district and disciplinary action against him. Even so, they have,
in a way, tried to shield the Dy.SP, as he was neither arrested nor was
his suspension recommended in this report.

(h)
There has been a serious lapse in preparing the Inquest Report. Firstly,
the official ­ Circle Officer (CO), Cheria Bariyarpur -- preparing
the report did not himself see the bodies of the victims nor did he mention
the bodies lying amid blood and gore inside the vehicle in his report.

A
viewing of the recorded CD clearly shows that the Cheria Bariyarpur CO
was preparing the report on the briefing of Begusarai Town PS in-charge
Shyamakant Jha, keeping his papers on the bonnet of the said Tata Sumo.
The CD recording also shows the bodies lying amid blood and gore inside
the vehicle. But this finds no mention in the report. The PUCL team also
found the vehicle full of blood stains even two days after the incident,
i.e. 25.12.2002.

(i)
Is the Manjhaul Dy.SP, who lives near the Manjhaul campus, in the habit
of recording even small details, like being unwell and his movements to
and from the campus? If it is not a regular practice, then how come he
made an entry about his illness in the station diary on 23.12.2002 at
6 pm? Does this not prove misuse of his powers granted through the Police
Manual to cover up his misdeed? This one and only entry about his illness
in his entire career was, obviously, made after the killing incident and
was meant to be used by Dy.SP Maheshwar Mahto in future in his defence.
In fact, this entry was not made at 6 pm but immediately after the incident
and purported to be made at the given hour.

Conclusion:
Having conducted the investigation, the PUCL team has reached the conclusion
by consensus that the police are fully to blame for the incident. They
are now resorting to lies in their defence in respect of the graveness
of the occurrence, and this by taking recourse to a factually incorrect
FIR in order to shield the Dy.SP concerned, Maheshwar Mahto, and the police
force involved.

The
truth regarding the bullet marks on the vehicle ­ either on its right
or rear side ­ is misleading and contradicts the police theory of
firing at it by the supposed criminals, coming from the Begusarai side,
since in that case, the bullet marks would have been on the left side
of the vehicle. Broken rear window clearly suggests that the vehicle was
fired at from behind and not from the left side of the OP, as claimed
by the informant. This is a clear-cut case of the autocratic and high-handed
attitude of the police. Also, no resident of Manjhaul came out in support
of the police version and people rather seemed shocked by the misdeed
of the keepers of the law.

Had
there been any effort to stop the already slowing down vehicle near the
speed-breaker, they would have well done it, and if at all that had not
worked, the police would have chased it. But the statements of the eye-witnesses
indicate that in place of trying to stop the vehicle, the police straightaway
opened fire at it, causing death of two persons and injury to two other
co-travellers. The police showed undue alacrity in opening fire. This
is an indication of gross misuse of power, aimed at spreading terror among
the populace. The motive of the police does not appear to be either checking
vehicle or arresting criminals, but to kill people at will. It is the
considered opinion of the investigating team that Dy.SP Maheshwar Mahto
and other members of the force had opened fire with the intent to kill
the victims, and not under some compulsion to maintain law and order,
nor to arrest any suspected criminal.

The
photographs of the deceased show without any doubt that they were shot
at from close range and vital parts of their body, like head, were aimed
at ­ neither was there any attempt to puncture the tyres of the Tata
Sumo nor were the lower parts of the victims bodies aimed at. One
of the injured persons got hit in the right arm, while the other, the
driver, in the back. It is sheer chance that the two escaped injuries
in their vital parts and survived. Still, such was the impact of the bullets
that they pierced the glass and the seat before hitting them. They are
so gravely injured that their treatment was not possible in Bihar and
therefore, their cases were referred to Delhi.

Recommendation:
Considering the heinous crime of the Manjhaul Dy.SP and other policemen
as cold-blooded murder of two innocent civilians and an attempt to murder
the other two, this investigation team strongly recommends that the accused
police official and the other police personnel be arrested and criminal
proceedings initiated against them. The PUCL team considers this misdeed
as a true case of serious violation of human rights and police atrocity,
and recommends that the next of kin of both deceased be paid Rs 10 lakh
each and those of the injured be paid Rs 5 lakh each.

The
team has an apprehension that if the perpetrators of this crime are not
suspended from service and put behind bars immediately, the cases against
them would be adversely affected. Therefore, the team recommends that
suitable action towards suspension and arrest of all the accused be taken
without any further delay.

The
way the investigation of this heinous and hair-raising murder is being
carried on appears to be a violation of the basic principals of criminal
jurisprudence and a bid to cover up the dastardly act to safeguard the
Manjhaul Dy.SP and his reserve force. The team feels that the case in
question be recommended by the state government to the National Human
Rights Commission (NHRC) or any other Central agency to ensure a free
and fair investigation.